Monday, February 6, 2017

Phase 3, week 3-4

Hi all
You have one entry to do over the break. It can cover any time since your last post.
Keep in mind the things I asked last week; otherwise you can also look at some of the "key questions" for media literacy (http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/five-key-questions-form-foundation-media-inquiry), notably creative techniques, or the way different people might interpret things.

34 comments:

The Israeli parliament recently passed a law allowing the state to take private Palestinian land on which Jewish settlements have been built and give it to the settlements’ exclusive use. Like most Israeli laws about settlements, it was controversial. Here’s how Times of Israel and Maan chose to report it:

In historic first, Israel legalizes West Bank outposts with sweeping new legislation - TOI on 06.02.17Israel’s outpost Regularization law denounced as ‘land theft’ and a ‘war crime’ - Maan on 07.02.17

By mentioning the “sweeping” aspect of the legislation, TOI is legitimizing the law. It has the same goal as when politicians magnify the number of people at rallies, to make their campaign - or in this case, the Israeli law - seem more popular. Maan’s headline chooses to put forward ‘land theft’ and ‘war crime’, which gives a negative first impression to the law. The quotation marks around those pejorative terms mean that Maan did not say this, but other sources did, giving more weight to the terms: readers already knows Maan is pro-Palestinian so it’s not unusual that Maan would denounce Israeli laws. Having the terms be taken from others show that Maan is not alone in its opinion. But a Jewish Home Party supporter would still argue that God gave the Jews this land so it can’t be ‘land theft’.

TOI defines the aim of the law as “to prevent future demolitions of settler homes, built on private Palestinian land.” With the first part of the sentence, TOI is insinuating that the settlers have been victims and that this law is finally re establishing justice to the Jews whose homes have been destroyed on the land appointed to them by God. TOI is assuming that its readers are pro-Israel because God’s word is more justified than private ownership. A pro-Palestinian would argue that sure, the law aims “to prevent future demolitions of settler homes” but would stress the “built on private Palestinian land” part. They would say Israel has therefore no right to seize the land.

On the thirteenth of February a US airstrike in the Helmand province killed 22 civilians. As seen in my last post, for this news, Aljazeera posted an article covering the event whereas CNN has not. However CNN was the only big news company to not mention the failed air strike.Indeed the New York Times, a strongly liberal press, did reveal the event. Because they are far into the left of the political spectrum, The New York Times are against the war in Afghanistan. Therefore by deciding to publish the article, they inform their audience (mostly well-educated, high class liberal citizens) that the US is killing innocents abroad. A reason they do this is to influence and persuade the readers to adopt their anti-war point of view.

On the other hand CNN, a more republican news company, chose not to publish the article for this same reason. In order to promote their point of view of supporting the US's military interventions, it would be "bad publicity" to publish an article revealing the US's mistake during the air raid.

In the Aljazeera, as well as New York Times coverage, the two implicitly accuse the US in their massacre. In the Aljazeera coverage, although they lack pictures to visualise the destruction, they shock the reader by quoting the locals who lost their relatives in the air strike. For example they describe the bodies of five year olds being extracted from the rubble, "Most of them who were pulled out of the rubble were bodies of women and children, as young as five-years-old."

With this sort of news coverage we can conclude that every news company seeks to persuade their audience into adopting their point of views- whether it's by avoiding events or using ameliorative or pejorative language.

In the past few weeks, tensions have continued to rise between Ukraine and Russia, especially since Donald Trump’s arrival. Around the beginning of February, it has especially been intensifying in the region of Donbass.

“The Ukrainian Journal”, in its article “Poroshenko hurries home from German trip”, clearly puts the blame on the Russians for starting the shelling: “Heavy shelling from the territories controlled by pro-Russian separatists”. They justify the fact that Russia started attacking by saying that since it occured a day after Putin and Trump’s phone conversation, “Putin perceived that he could launch an offensive”. They then include several quotes accusing Russia and asking it to stop the attacks. They want to show that Russia is entirely responsible for the fighting.

“Russia Beyond the Headlines” wants to show that Ukraine is responsible for attacking in the first place. Without directly stating this, they repeat some of Ukraine’s arguments, using a detached tone filled with irony, as if to show how absurd Ukraine's arguments are: “Russia is once again blamed for the event”, or “Anyway”. They accuse Ukraine implicitely, for example by putting, on a picture, the legend “WIll Ukrainian troops launch a new offensive in Donbas?”. The article also keeps mentioning what “experts” say: the experts counter Ukraine’s argument by saying that, after Putin’s and Trump’s call in which Trump apparently said he wanted “to distance himself from the Ukrainian conflict”, Ukraine attacked in order to draw attention to itself and put its problems back on the international stage. They want to show that Ukraine’s arguments are absurd and that it is Ukraine who started the fighting.

For this post I will be covering in detail my two different news sources, how they represent the two sides of the conflict and their strategies as a news outlet.First of all the Uyghur American Association (UAA), supports Uyghur community and denounces violation of human rights by the Chinese government. However it is not a local Uyghur news it is actually an American news source based in Washington. As relation between China and America have gotten tenser this could be explain way this news outlets objective, by insisting Uyghur rights, culture and community UAA promotes their independence from China and supports the local fight against the Chinese repression. The news source is focused only on this conflict and most of the articles mention violation of Human rights discrediting China, the news source avoids mentioning in their post the American involvement which could almost conceal UAA as a Uyghur news source.On the other side, Xinhua is a much bigger news source, it has national and international influence, much wider than UAA’s, it is for example translated in 8 different languages. Whereas UAA concentrates on the Uyghur conflict Xinhua does not, they tend to limit their news on the matter almost as a way to conceal the conflict, their strategy works in a certain way as very few news on this conflict exist leading to people believing it to be a minor conflict although repression and violence do exist. On their few articles on the matter they insist on disorder and chaos provoked by Uyghurs and glorify Chinese action.Both news source are completely different whereas Americans accuse Chinese and try to spread news on the conflict, China tends to conceal it and insist on other events where their actions are valorous.

Juliette Debray - Boko Haram The Guardian has published two stories these past couple of weeks touching on Boko Haram’s insurgency. One, exploring ISIS’s funding of smugglers’ fees for “child refugees in a desperate attempt to attract new recruits”, more loosely linked to the conflict than the most recent one depicting a portrait of an antelope hunter turned Boko Haram hunter. Daily Trust, on the other hand, has published 30 stories since our last blog entry; almost all of which report recent Boko Haram movements, government warnings, or more recently, UN statements regarding the humanitarian results of the conflict. Included in these stories is Aisha and her hunter group’s portrait, although directly taken from The Guardian. Generally, a clear difference can be observed between the aims or values of each news site. The Guardian, in respect with the “millennium development goals” defined by the UN, focuses on the “people” facet of the Boko Haram conflict; and usually develops and argues its ideas quite well in its articles. The latter is the greater discrepancy that can be noted between the two sites; as Daily Trust keeps its reports very succinct, sometimes not more than three or four sentences. All in all, Daily Trust’s aims seem to be simply reporting or transferring the information to the people, whereas The Guardian wishes to speak to and of the people.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/05/isis-recruitment-drive-child-refugeeshttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/08/antelope-hunter-boko-haram-nigeriahttp://www.dailytrust.com.ng/news/feature/meet-aisha-a-former-antelope-hunter-who-now-tracks-boko-haram/184853.htmlhttp://www.dailytrust.com.ng/searchstory.aspx?freetxt=Boko%20Haram

On February 15th there was a bomb attack close to an army checkpoint in the Tihsile area. In this bombing there were two dead soldiers and there are a few others that were badly injured. In All Africa’s article the information that is given is minimalistic like in all their articles. They want to get the information out as fast as possible so they do not spend much time elaborating on the subject nor do they spend much time writing long well written sentences. The article in itself is only four sentences long and each sentence is a paragraph which makes it easy to read. The first two sentences are about the same subject, the bombing at the checkpoint, but the two other sentences talk about how the Somali military commanders have not yet given more information on the bombings and gun raids in Lower Shabelle region and that al-Shabaab has killed two SNA soldiers in a roadside blast. The way it is written is very robotic and the english that is used is simple enough so that everyone can understand it immediately and act upon it if need be.

On the other hand Garowe Online does give more information. Although they also write one sentence paragraphs, the sentences are longer and are a bit more elaborate. The english used is fairly simple but the way the sentences are structured (connecting words such as “however”, use of commas, etc) make it seem more thought through. They also talk about another subject apart from the bombing at the checkpoint, which is the bombing of a convoy that was ferrying the AMISOM troops. This comes through as being more official because they put in a quotation of someone that has authority so it has a bigger impact on the reader. When talking about the bombing of the checkpoint they include how far away the place is from Mogadishu which is quite interesting because over the course of the time we can observe how al-Shabaab is moving around the capital and in it.

Elise- War in YemenThe creative techniques by both news outlets are different. This week, The National’s front page features a dominant photo of a young girl holding up an AK 47, an enormous gun in comparison to her own slight figure. This most likely intends to shock, sadden, or anger the reader. Their front page also includes a small synthesis of the conflict on the side, such as who is fighting whom and why, as well as important political figures taking part in the conflict. Its place on the upper right hand side of the page is well thought out so that the reader can easily spot it and scroll down, so to be sure that they are aware of the conflict’s history, and not just its news. Gulf News and The National both have small photos and short descriptions of each article on their respective home pages, but unlike the latter, Gulf News doesn’t feature a summary of the conflict. Instead, half the page is dedicated to other news from surrounding countries. The “Latest from Gulf” column seems to take up almost as much space as the “Latest from Yemen” column. The news outlet also features a “Most Popular Tab” to push the reader to read up on what everyone else seems to be reading. The National presents many articles reporting violation of human rights, such as child marriages, children with guns, and hungry children turning to begging. Westerners would be inclined to be totally outraged at reading these, while neighboring countries may be inclined to assume that this is necessary to the war effort, as their own countries may have suffered the same.http://www.thenational.ae/world/yemenhttp://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/yemen

Rémi Masia Depardieu, Destabilization of MaliAs the terrorist attacks in Southern and Central Mali are gradually becoming more and more common, the local news outlet Mali Actu is attempting to reassure their readers, Malian inhabitants. On the other hand, the international news outlet Reuters still sensibilize their readers, people who majoritarily don’t originate from Mali or Africa, to the high terrorist activity in the region. For example, on February 13, Mali Actu insisted on the celebration within the country of the radio. It reported on the conference organised by the Union of Radios and Free Televisions (Urtel) that talked about the roles of radios in the consolidation of peace. On the other hand, Reuters reported on February 13 of a clash between the Fulanis and the Bambaras 300 kilometers Northeast of Bamako which involved the death of 13 people according to the security ministry, and the fleeing of over 100 Fulani families, though locals say there were almost 50 deaths. Therefore, the news outlet Mali Actu are trying through the power of media to appease and reassure the Malian population, mentioning peace instead of death. Reuters, however, have no interest in re-assuring their readers and prefers to report on the ongoing Malian conflict.

On Sunday, February 12, violent clashes erupted in the Kashmir Valley (also known as the Indian administered portion of Kashmir). According to the Times of India, 8 people including two civilians, two soldiers, and four local militants were killed. Two of the four militants belonged to Hizbul Mujahideen, a Kashmiri separatist group which holds pro-Pakistan ideology and is designated a terrorist organization by India (Times of India). The other two militants were from Lashkar-e-Taiba, one of the largest and most active terrorist groups operating mainly from Pakistan (Times of India). However, the article does not reveal who killed whom. According to the Daily Pakistan, Indian troops “martyred” five Kashmiri “youngsters.” It is hard to identify the number of casualties, as it varies from source to source. The Daily Pakistan article is very blunt and quick to blame India for the attacks. The article focuses purely on the death of five “youngsters,” but fails to mention the death of militants and soldiers. Knowing that both Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba are pro-Pakistan terrorist organizations, perhaps the article intentionally left out the four militants that were killed. The articles are approximately the same length but the Times of India article is much more informative; it seems that the Daily Pakistan is intent on making India look bad, but gives little information about the attack itself. The picture that is featured in the Daily Pakistan shows a soldier or militant trampling and kicking a civilian. After reading the article, it can be inferred that the “attacker” is Indian. The picture featured in the Times of India, however, shows a picture of a road with a long machine-gun in the foreground. Although it suggests a violent attack, the image is nowhere near as explicit, provocative, or critical as the Daily Pakistan article.

Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/srinagar/security-forces-deployed-across-kashmir/articleshow/57122174.cms

Kelcie Bons North KoreaCNN and Fox News both covered the news about one of the suspects in the death of Kim Jong Nam, Kim Jong Un's half brother. They tell us that according to officials she thought she was squirting water on someone for a comedy prank show and this water is believed to have been poisoned and the cause of his death. Both sources give back-ground information on the case and the suspect and give the same information. The message in both articles was created by people who believe the story given by the suspect, they put forward only information on her description of events (and in Fox News case on how much people say she is a good person) without ever questioning if she is saying the truth. Many different techniques are used to attract the reader's attention: the information is clearly stated and spread out in many little paragraphs in a way that is easy to read. In the Fox News article, the title starts with a question "Comedy prank?" In the CNN article, the issue is presented in a mysterious way with a second part to the article entitled "Twists and turns", sentences that imply that things are drastic "They were concerned enough to take him to the on-premises clinic" and words like "sketchy", "bizarre", "mysterious".http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/17/asia/kim-jong-nam-murder-suspect-gag-show/index.htmlhttp://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/02/17/comedy-prank-suspect-in-murder-kim-jong-uns-half-brother-says-was-duped.html

Egypt is a country involved in the Libyan Civil War since it is actively trying to resolve this conflict. On the 16th of February, the leaders of the two rivaling forces were invited to meet in Cairo “to find a solution to the Libyan political juncture.” Arab News and The Libya Observer reported this visit and “meeting” of the two leaders (they did not actually meet), however they used very different headlines to attract the readers. For example, Arab News reports “Libya rivals agree to explore ways to end rift, says Egypt”, while The Libya Observer reports “Al-Sirraj: Haftar let slide an invaluable chance to end Libya’s political fragmentation.” First of all, these headlines are very different and contradictory, on one side Arab News is showing the optimism in the story, and The Libya Observer decides to portray the Civil War as never ending. Furthermore, in the Arab News’s article it is said: “Libyan media reported that Al-Sarraj and Haftar did not meet face to face during the talks in Cairo”, and in The Libya Observer it is written: “‘But on the second day, they said Haftar refused to meet him, giving no excuses.’ The statement adds.” The Libya Observer moreover emphasises that the Khalifa Haftar was the origin of the problem, while Arab News does not blame anyone in particular.

The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) and Press TV both cover the Saudi Arabian funeral bombing of last Tuesday. They both, for once, seem to be siding against Saudi Arabia, though one is more fervent than the other.

Press TV is much more direct when it comes to blaming Saudi Arabia. It firstly catches the reader’s attention with the headline: “Yemeni’s condemn Saudi bombing of funeral”. Throughout the article, they mostly show the citizens’ point of view, knowing it to be fervently against Saudi Arabia as they outrageously bombed a funeral procession. The picture shows a woman looking for her possessions in the rubble, aiming to alight the reader’s empathy for the victims of this attack. Their introductory sentence denounces the UN along with Saudi Arabia, trying to put the blame on the European powers as well.

The article is based on a Houthi statement concerning the bombing, ensuring that it highlights the unfairness and cruelty of the attack. They carry on showing the horror the citizens had to go through when dealing with the aftermath. They were in the crossfire, and never did anything to deserve such violence.

Under the picture of a seemingly lost child in the middle of deserted, rubble-covered land are the words of UN Humanitarian Coordinator Jamie McGoldrick, showing even the adverse side, the UN, finds this situation unacceptable. The article finishes on an opening to the conflict in general, focusing exclusively on Saudi atrocities. They show the Houthis as being the only protectors of Yemen, forever loyal and dedicated to the country.

MEMO seems to stay relatively tame on this matter. The headline “Women and children killed in Saudi strike on funeral in Yemen” does expose Saudi brutality without being violent. The picture right underneath is of a military man searching for metal in the rubble, which is neither shocking nor leaves the reader indifferent. The article in itself doesn’t have any subjective statements or interviews, but seems to condemn Saudi Arabia, especially by the use of the phrase “brutal attack”. They see and admit how outrageous the situation is.

Under is shown a series of tweets reacting passionately to a video of a man digging up his dead mother from rubble, exhibiting clearly the opinion that Saudi Arabia is to blame. An outraged tweet reacting to the fact that Saudi Arabia are investigating the attack shows how cruel and unfair the coalition has been.

Both article denounce the unfairness of the situation and the unjustified brutality of the Saudi attack on innocent Yemeni citizens. Press TV does so in a more offensive and violent matter, meant to outrage the reader and rally him to their cause whereas MEMO just transmits the information, ensuring that the Saudi Arabian actions are portrayed as horrible and unwarranted.

On Febuary 1, 2017, Etienne Tshisekedi, the head of the Congolese opposition died at the age of 84 in Brussels. Africatime and News24 describe the event and the consequences of the death of a main figure of the DRC. Africatime, the Congolese journal, seems to pay a lot of respect to Etienne Tshisekedi. In fact, the title of the article: “Congolese pay last respect to opposition head in Brussels” already tells the reader that the article will respectfully praise the man that fought for democracy since the independence. The picture illustrating the article shows a coffin with the Congolese flag, an image of Tshisekedi and people paying last respect. Again, the image illustrates the respect that the author and the Congolese community gives to him. The author starts by giving quotes of people glorifying the man that served the country. He even gives quotes of people from other countries to give an international importance to the death of a Congolese leader. The author plays on the reader’s emotion to raise awareness. News24 seems a lot more detached from the event. In fact, the author gives the political consequences of the death of Etienne Tshisekedi in DRC. They describe the problems in bringing back the coffin with Tshisekedi in his home country. The use of the words “angry” and “snared” show the reluctance of the government to bring back Tshisekedi for a national funeral. The author ends with a pessimistic sentence saying that compromises and talks can only start after Tshisekedi’s death; showing the inhumane aspect of the Congolese government. Therefore, the two news source describe the same event differently: one tries to create emotions to raise international awareness whereas the other plays on concrete, political examples to show the consequences of Tshisekedi’s death.

A lot has happened in Nigeria over this vacation, but apparently not according to Aljazeera. Whereas The Guardian reported many attacks and deaths over the past two weeks, Aljazeera released approximately three posts related to Boko Haram. The information disclosed by Aljazeera only referred to President Muhammadu Buhari’s “medical vacation” to England and one failed terrorist attack. On the other hand, The Guardian mentioned a total of fifteen attacks- big and small- and did not fail to recognize even the death of one policeman or one schoolboy. It therefore seems like Aljazeera does not pay much attention to the actual conflict but more so to the views they will get if they choose to mention a certain event. However, The Guardian genuinely cares about the Nigerian people even if these people are unknown villagers from a small tribal village in Yobe State, the death of whom would be insignificant to Aljazeera. “Critics question the station's journalistic integrity while American detractors in particular claim that Al-Jazeera serves as a platform for anti-American sentiment and a vehicle for incitement to violence (1).” Not only has Aljazeera been accused of being anti-American but it has also been accused of being anti-Semitic. It has also been critisized for being owned and funded by Qatar which means it must take sides with the Qatari government and it never mentions its numerous human right violations or the abuse of immigrant workers that happens in Qatar (2). This network is known to belittle atrocities done by extremist groups and promote actions taken by Western governments. It has been accused of supporting terrorism and political Islam combined with Salafism (3).

The title of Eszter Zalan’s article for EU Observer (migration), “'Sobering' poll finds European support for Trump's Muslim ban,” sums up the events discussed. The author reveals that in a poll from a London think tank, 55 per cent of Europeans thought that immigration coming from countries with mainly Muslim population must be stopped. The poll, published on the 7th of February by Chatham House, conducted the poll just before US President Trump’s executive order was made public. The head picture for the article shows refugees with some luggage; walking down a dirt road in between some fields. The message being sent here is that these migrants are forced to move around constantly, far from their dangerous homes. The adjective “sobering” from the article’s title is based off Chatham House’s post-poll reveal statement. It illustrates how these facts are a surprise to the author.Mirroring this reveal, Europe is to “FINALLY get tough on migration with major border crackdown,” according to Nick Glutteridge (from the Daily Express), as informs Immigration Concern. The author seems to immediately put their personal opinion with a “what took you so long?” in the title. The article, from February 15th (16th on IC), relates that Europe is “finally” taking action, even as Angela Merkel protests. New institutions will also mark big steps, according to the author.

Western countries have fought over the past centuries for the freedom of speech. As people were progressively granted the right to speak for themselves the press also developed strong and provocative opinions. The BBC fully benefits from this freedom and it can been seen in their articles. However the KCNA news agency is highly controlled and hence doesn’t get the right to include any personal thoughts or feelings. The articles covering Kim Yong-nam’s — Kim Yong-un’s brother in law— murder makes for a perfect example. Considered as a political threat for the DPRK, Kim Jong-un feared him. The BBC possesses an thoroughly detailed article with pictures, quotes, dates and implicit opinions. The title of the article: “North Korea murdered Kim Jong-nam, says South Korea”, is already provocative, it highly suggests, by starting with and affirmative clause discretely followed by “says South Korea”, that North Korea is responsible for the brother’s death. ("North Korea Murdered Kim Jong-nam, Says South Korea." BBC News. BBC, 19 Feb. 2017. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.) Yet when it comes to KCNA, there are no articles about his death. The North-Korean population is consequently unaware.This shows one of the most essential information about the source: who the author is and to what extent he or she can express his or her ideas. KCNA’s author’s are strongly limited whereas the BBC’s authors are free.

The fighting between the Rebels and Assad’s government have, for the moment, ceased since the Astana Peace Talks that took place on January 23rd. However, fighting in general has not; Russia and Assad’s men are still fighting ISIS and it appears that Germany and the USA might join them. The Munich Security Conference that took place Saturday has been covered by both Sputnik and Aljazeera and both report it differently. While the Russian news outlet’s title is “Merkel Calls for Joint Fight with Russia Against Terror Despite Differences”, Aljazeera entitled its article “Merkel: 'Islam is not the source of terrorism'”. The contrast is huge and quite interesting as Sputnik in its title and in its article, speaks only about how Germany will become Russia’s ally in the fight against terrorism and doesn’t even mention what Merkel said concerning Islam. On the other hand, Aljazeera emphasized how the Donald Trump’s recent “Muslim Ban” was criticized by Merkel and how she wanted all European forces to come together in a fight not against Muslims, but against terrorist organizations such as ISIS. In Aljazeera’s article, the reader finds many quotes that Merkel said concerning Islam such as: “"I expect from religious authorities of Islam to find strong language in order to delimitate peaceful Islam from terrorism committed in the name of Islam.” Whereas in Sputnik’s there are no such quotes.

Ito - BurundiThis week, both Reuters and Iwacu published about the Burundian government's refusal to attend the peace talks planned in Arusha, Tanzania to settle tensions in the ongoing conflict. Reuters’ article, entitled “Burundi government will not attend planned peace talks” seems to align with the newspaper’s non-biased philosophy. It states the viewpoints of all parties involved, which helps illustrate the complexity of the conflict without putting all the fault on one person. It incites the reader to be critical of all parties. The article states that:-Burundi’s government “has repeatedly accused the U.N. of bias against it” because of the multiple publications from the UN about violations of human rights, and refused to attend the Arusha meetings because it “objected to the presence of senior U.N. adviser Benomar Jamal”-”The main opposition grouping, CNARED, said it would attend the talks although it has previously accused mediator Benjamin William Mkapa of bias.” (Mkapa legitimized Nkurunziza as president in december)

Iwacu presents a more clearly biased viewpoint on this event. An english language article published on February 16th was entitled “Burundi Government boycotts the Arusha dialogue” and the term “boycott” was reused several times in the article. Furthermore, the only bold headline in the middle of the article says “Government seeks pretext to avoid peace talks” and we understand later that it is Jean Claude Nkundwa, a peace activist and conflict analyst, who says this. In fact, Nkundwa’s opinion is quoted for most of the article. He says that the other parties involved have to work to create an “impartial facilitation team” in order to bring the government back into the peace talk process.The french language article on this subject closely follows the political officials who were at Arusha the night they found out about the “boycott”. It describes a lively and friendly atmosphere that was shifted by the message and chooses quotes that translate anger and resentment. Iwacu is clearly not siding with the government, and wants to show that it is wrong. As the newspaper addresses a primarily burundian audience, it is contributing to the resentment the population currently feels for the government.

Marc de Laportalière-Tensions in East China Sea This week, both the Diplomat and the Japan Times have covered the ever-rising tensions in the East China Sea. The Times’ article is written for readers who do not have much knowledge of the conflict at all. It even gives a small two-sentence synthesis of the conflict. Surprisingly, this article is not a “scoop”, as it’s main subject is Japan’s desire to accelerate the warship building program, which is a rather dry subject. Also, it has no image on top, and consists only of text. It is probably not written for a Japanese audience as they would already have knowledge of the system. Moreover there are two conversions from SI units (km) to miles, and yen to dollars. So the audience is probably American The Diplomat’s article resembles the Japan Times’ one very closely, though they are on different topics. THis article is composed of three parts, an introduction, in which the author writes about Chinese incursions in Japanese waters, a larger part in which American dignitaries’ reactions are described, and finally a larger part which describes the conflict’s history since 2012. So, the reader is not expected to have precise knowledge of the conflict but would know of American public figures. So the reader is probably American population who would and to know more about the conflict.

19/1 Brighter Kashmir covered the terrorist suicide bombing that killed dozens on February 16 in a Pakistani Sufi shrine. The news outlet published two front page articles (“At Least 50 Dead in Pakistan Shrine Blast” and “Pakistan Shrine Bombing Toll Rises to 85”) in the next two days. In the second article the phrase “Kashmiris offer funeral prayers -in-absentia for blast victims” is written nearly as big as the article titles and printed in bright red to make it stand out. The article focuses on the horror of this attack and the importance of reaching out to the victims. It continues on page 6…Brighter Kashmir only briefly mentions the army’s reaction in their article published the same day. It says that the army was dispatched along with medical personnel. This decision is show in a positive light.

The Times of India’s coverage of this event can be found among articles such as “10 Cancer symptoms most people ignore”. Their readers seem to have a very limited interest in this matter. The Times reacts to this by choosing catchy headlines such as “Pakistan detains dozens after 75 killed at Shia shrine” or “No restraint for anyone: Day after shrine blast, Pakistan kills 100 militants” that focus on Pakistan’s bad behavior rather than the horror Pakistani victims have suffered. The first article only actually contains three very brief lines about the action Pakistan has taken. These say that Pakistani forces have detained 45 suspects which is a normal reaction to the situation and reflects nothing of the implied violence in the title. The top comment showed the clear pro-india bias of the readers: “In Pakistan, it is always the minorities who are victims of terrorist attacks. In India, it is the majority Hindus who are the victims of terrorism. That shows who is more tolerant.” The second article called “No restraint for anyone: Day after shrine blast, Pakistan kills 100 militants” is illustrated with an image of a crowd of mourners carrying one of the blast victims. The violent title makes the crowd seem menacing and gives us a completely different idea of the mourners than Brighter Kashmir. A hundred terrorists were killed on the 17th by the army. The pakistani army of chiefs declared "Each drop of the nation's blood shall be avenged, and avenged immediately. No more restraint for anyone.". All of the comments applauded his strong stand and said that India should emulate his actions. One reader said “in India, politicians and human rights activist rally behind terrorists to save them.” while another declared that “This is exactly the way the Indian army should act in Kashmir.”

Throughout the past two weeks,both Al Jazeera and Iraqi News have reported on Iraq’s interventions in Mosul. However they both wrote an article concerning the return of thousands of displaced people. Al-Jazeera’s article is entitled “ Thousands return to Iraq’s Mosul as fighting continues” whereas Iraqinews.com’s headline is “MOMD: Over 3200 displaced persons return back to eastern Mosul”.

Iraqinews’s article written( at first sight: very short,concise and straightforward) by Loaa Adel, seems to be rather neutral about it or even seeing this as a good thing for the country. However she never mentions the reasons why these people have come back nor the danger that they’re facing. She is also just stating facts and quoting officials trying to be as neutral as possible. The use of words like “according to”, “states” means that she isn’t delivering an opinion. Furthermore the language used is extremely basic and concise in order to target a wider audience (kids, teenagers and adults). Concerning the layout, there is one main picture showing refugees on top and there are advertisements on the sides of the article.

On the other hand, Al-Jazeera’s article written by an anonymous news reporter over there seems to be much more detailed as visually it’s longer. It’s title is rather concerning as it infers that these people coming back are exposed to an extremely high risk and is warning the targeted audience that this isn’t necessarily a good operation. The use of an exaggerated vocabulary is also present to remind the reader of the danger as the subtitle says “despite fierce fighting”. The author is also divulging the conditions in which these people have to live like hunger, poverty, fear and destruction (completely neglected by the iraqinews.com). This article appears to be focused on the negative side of these operations as they quote people denouncing horrific conditions. The screen display is however extremely similar to Iraqinews.com’s one.source:http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/thousands-return-iraq-mosul-fighting-continues-170216081649227.htmlhttp://www.iraqinews.com/features/momd-3200-displaced-persons-return-back-eastern-mosul/

As I could not find an article treating the same subject on both CNN and ARA News, I will compare the layouts of the websites. ARA News, being a very regionally focused news source, shows a large slideshow of articles focused on troubles in the region. More often than not, there are guns and/or violence present in the thumbnail. At the bottom of the home page, there is a large map of the Syrian region, showcasing the locations of major events. On the CNN homepage, there is usually a large closeup of the face of Donald Trump, and the “top” stories are in small writing to it’s left, where articles about the Ukrainian ceasefire and “3 words that grant instant divorce” are put one next to the other. The descent towards the bottom of the homepage shows a large US politics section followed by the second most important thing in the world, according to CNN’s website layout; Sports, Travel and Style; along with several tongue-in-cheek headlines subtly bashing Donald Trump.

Emma Ghafari – Conflict in UkraineTwo articles that clearly underline the biased reporting of the Ukrainian conflict of both TASS – a Russian news outlet – and Ukrinform – a Ukrainian news outlet – are “Ukrainian military violate ceasefire in Lugansk Republic - news agency” for TASS and “President Duda: Poland supports anti-Russian sanctions over aggression in Ukraine” for Ukrinform. First, TASS’ is biased as it is clearly yet again trying to persuade its readers that it is in fact Ukraine who is initiating the ceasefire violations. The article makes use of many details concerning weapons, to make their story more credible: “using weapons, mortars and small arms”. The article also gives a description of the conflict’s background, stating that the Minsk agreements “[…] also laid out a […] a constitutional reform to give more autonomy to the war-torn eastern regions”, suggesting the need (in Russia’s opinion) for the detachment of Luhansk and Donetsk from Ukraine. Moreover, Ukrinform’s article also defends an idea in favor of Ukraine in its article, stating that the Polish Prime Minister Duda is on Ukraine’s side, and against Russia at that. The article claims that Russia has “violated international law” in Ukraine and includes an excerpt of Duda’s interview concerning the subject convincing readers of the point they are wishing to make. The article also mentions the U.S. and its implication in the affair, reminding readers of yet another country that supports Ukraine.

Why is this message being sent?Once again, South Sudanese media covers the importance of Ethiopia in the country’s current stage. Both news sources, Sudan Tribune and Radio Tamazuj like many others support peace in South Sudan. Therefore, the handshake in the Sudan Tribune’s cover photograph brings a message of hope to the source’s readers. Indeed, a joint alliance with the neighboring country represents a weakening of the rebel groups and increases chances of stability. The Sudan Tribune supports the facts with direct quotes to bring a humane aspect into play. Meanwhile Radio Tamazuj continues to stick to the facts as they are reported by the presidential spokesman. The Sudan Tribune creates a more structured and elaborated article. It reminds its audience of the initial trigger of the civil war and the deal made previously to offer an overall understanding of the event in its context. Furthermore, both the titles of the articles are interpretive characteristics of the news source. The more affirmative and active voice subjected in Radio Tamazuj’s title contrasts with Sudan Tribune passive tone.

Last week Sunday Express published an article on the EU’s decision to have stricter measures on migration, and EU Observer one on studies made on people’s opinion of migration. Both are very interesting in that they show the news outlets’ opposite views on migration.- The Sunday Express article starts with the usual bold title: “'What took so long?' Europe to FINALLY get tough on migration with major border crackdown” and is cut up with the usual video and pictures. The article itself, written by Nick Gutteridge uses strong language to state its point (“disastrously weak borders”, “Merkel’s migrant madness”). With the EU’s recent decision to toughen migration measures, the article takes on an almost boastful tone, saying Eurosceptics and conservative politicians “were right all along” and are now “vindicated”. According to the article, this is Brussel’s biggest step to control the “twin threats of Islamist terror and uncontrolled immigration”.- The EU Observer article, written by Thomas Huddleston, is based on a poll and a few studies. The poll shows that in 10 out of 21 European countries, a majority would be in favor of a “Trump-style ban on migration”. The studies shows that anti-immigrant sentiment stems mostly from misconceptions and is actually targeted at certain ethnic groups rather than migrants in general; and that the more open a country’s migration policy is, the more its population will also be open to immigrants.This article is from the category of “opinion” articles, and the point of view and message is exactly opposite to the Sunday Express article’s: it states that it is all politician’s duty to correct people’s misconceptions and promote openness to migrants. In this article moderately strong language is used to target “far-right’s fear-mongering” and people’s “hate and unfounded fear”, contrarily to the other article. It asks for all range of politicians to “stand up and tell the truth” and insists on integration policy instead of closing borders.

Billy McGovern Israel-Palestine 26/02“Trump: Two-state solution not only way to achieve peace”, Al Jazeerahttp://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/trump-state-solution-achieve-peace-170215183746868.html“Trump rolls back US obligation to two states, tells Netanyahu to ‘hold back on settlements’ ”,Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-walks-back-us-support-for-two-states-but-vows-to-pursue-a-great-peace-deal/

In a shift of policies, president Donald Trump announced at a press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House last Wednesday that a single-state solution would also be acceptable, as long as both sides agreed with it.This has been at the source of great debate in the United nations as the two-state solution has for a long time been supported by the United States and by many diplomats in the UN. The titles of both articles reveal different standpoints on the matter for both news sources. Times of Israel voices its support for Trump, stigmatizing the two-state solution, describing it as an “obligation,” and stating that Trump “expressed enthusiasm” for “a great peace deal.” Al Jazeera calls Trump’s statement a “major policy shift”, offering as a description that Trump would back a one-state solution, but not asserting that this decision represents a step towards peace. Al Jazeera offers arguments made by analysts and diplomats against Trump’s resolution, as well as showing Palestine’s growing recognition in the UN, showing why Trump’s decision has been met with the disapproval of many, indicating Palestinian support on their part but not discrediting Trump’s claims. Times of Israel narrates the press conference, resuming how Netanyahu and Trump praised each other and are resolved to strengthen their bonds. Although this article indicates that Netanyahu did not explicitly mention the Palestinian State nor the two-state solution, it still shows enthusiasm for the relationship between Trump’s relationship with Netanyahu, describing their exchanges as good humored, although there was clear tension when Trump mentioned settlements to Netanyahu.

Matteo Valderrama- DRC conflictOn Friday 17th of February, at least 27 Hutus were killed in North Kivu by Mai-Mai militiamen. This massacre is one of many from ethnic rivalries that have plagued this region of Congo for the past 20 years. The Turkish news source, Anadolu Agency, as well as the IBtimes have relayed these informations. The article from Anadolu Agency was released quicker than the one from IBtimes and reflects more on the human condition while the article in IBtimes focuses on the leader and the power relations in between the different forces. This is further shown in the other articles about the conflict that the two news sources have covered. Anadolu Agency concentrates on the question of human rights and the violations of these rights with stories, especially in the French section of the news source which is very close to the DRC conflict, such as “RDC : 427 violations des droits de l'Homme enregistrées en janvier (ONU).” ON the other hand, IBtimes is much more concentrated on the business side of the conflict with stories such as Politics“DRC government $1.8bn cost fears leave crucial 2017 elections hanging in the balance” or “DRC: Glencore's $960m buyout of mines from controversial Israeli tycoon Dan Gertler.” These stories involving the financial aspect of the conflict were not even mentioned in Anadolu Agency stories. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/27-killed-drc-after-mai-mai-rebels-target-hutu-civilians-north-kivu-1607577http://aa.com.tr/fr/afrique/rdc-au-moins-24-morts-dans-un-massacre-à-caractère-ethnique/753806

On February 16th, a suicide bombing took place in a sufi shrine in Pakistan. It resulted in more than 72 deaths (India Live Today). The bombing was part of a wave of terrorist attacks that occurred this week, killing in total over 100 people (Al Jazeera). The Pakistani government, in order to prevent further attacks, temporarily sealed its borders with Afghanistan, claiming that the country is, for the terrorists, a “safe-haven” (Al Jazeera).India Live Today presents this news in a strictly factual way: the article is mainly composed of reports and announcements, and is written in a concise manner. This is possibly a result of their goal to be “independent, impartial and honest” (India Live News - About Us). Al Jazeera, on the other hand, gives details and additional information on the subject. This could mainly be explained by the fact that the news website is complementary to their television channel, and the article was written to complete the news announced on television. The news channel being the main news outlet and source of their profit, Al Jazeera’s website does not have any ads and tends to develop many tangents on the topic in their articles. India Live Today, on the contrary, is a web journal, and their news outlet and profit are only on their website. This is possibly why they mainly state the important elements in an event, and offers articles from various categories to gain a wider audience.

Both the LO and the LH are based in Tripoli but share different views on what is happening in the city. In the wake on the anniversary of the revolution the LO insists on the state of happiness the Libyans are “in good times as these of the revolution anniversary” and insisting that they expect “thousands of Libyans from everywhere” to gather “to chant support and joy” of the revolution. Pictures of people lighting torches and celebrating are included in the article. The LH however insists on there being “little to celebrate” which is even the title. The LH also highlights that there will be few people celebrating which contradicts the LO. LH also says that this is due to the “constant recurrence of negativity” in the capital and due to the ever more present fear of major battles starting in the city. The LH’s article does not include photos and it insists on the fear, the divide and the disappointment of the people. The LH also views foreign involvement in the conflict in this article negatively.The LH has a Wikipedia page which the LO doesn’t, stating that its founders are a British journalist who worked for several years in the Arab world and was raised in Libya and a Libyan journalist who resigned from the state owned newspaper because he was frustrated by the censorship under Gaddafi. The LH however only has 23 people talking about it on their Facebook page which they no longer really update whereas the LO has 1,571 people talking about it on Facebook and is extremely active on it.o https://www.facebook.com/pg/LibyaHerald/likes/?ref=page_internal

http://www.garoweonline.com/en/news/somalia/somalia-al-shabaab-seize-town-in-central-somaliaOn the 23rd of February, Somali news outlet Garowe online announced that yet another town has fallen to the hands of Islamic terrorist group Al Shabaab. GO reports that the Al Shabaab militants took control of the town after perpetrating a series of attacks against AMISOM and Somali troops stationed in the area which forced the latter to retreat. They also speak of a "huge landmine explosion" which "ripped" through a KDF (Kenyan Defense Forces) military convoy near the Somali-Kenyan border. Garowe Online end their brief article by stating that these large scale attacks come as no surprise as the terrorist group has been involved in an effort to intensify their activity in order to disrupt the government's reconstruction plan of late.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201703020387.htmlA week later, African news outlet AllAfrica released an article with a headline that claims "Al Shabaab Was Defeated in the Battle." It then goes on to talk about what the Somali president said during his speech in front of the Somali parliament for the inauguration of the new Prime Minister, and sporadically mentions Al Shabaab without ever going into depth on the subject. The actual subject of the article seems to be much more focalized on the government's rebuilding efforts than the actual fighting of Al Shabaab. Never does the article explain how Al Shabaab was "defeated" stating only that it had been "weakened" because of AMISOM and Somali interventions before changing subjects and explaining the main points of the Somali presidents speech, ending with his talking about the importance to help people affected by droughts.

These two articles seem contradictory, the first saying that Al Shabaab has been emboldened of late and the latter saying they are basically done for. In AllAfrica's defense, they got their article off of a Somali news source the Shabelle Media Network posted in Mogadishu. Perhaps since GO are from Puntland they might be slightly against the central government and want the total independence of their semi autonomous region and as a result refuse to acknowledge their successful efforts against Al Shabaab.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/world/asia/jim-mattis-defense-iran-persian-gulf.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FSouth%20China%20Sea&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collectionOn the 4th of February, The New York Times reported Jim Mattis, the American Defense Secretary announced that he saw no reason to deploy more military forces in the South China Sea and emphasized on the importance of resolving the issue in the most peaceful manner possible. Mr. Mattis stated that China's position on the South China Sea claims have angered all the countries in the region and "shredded there trust in China. The article very briely mentions the conflict in the South China Sea and emphasize much more on Mattis' comments over Iran and the US' relationship to Japan. However, the article does not question his statement nor does it cast any doubts. The New York Times tries to stay as neutral as possible quoting the Defense Secretary rather than using paraphrase. This could be due to the harsh criticism they have faced by the Trump administration who has accused them of being "Fake News" on numerous occasions. The targeted audience is likely one that is educated as some of the expressions used aren't common : "showed restraint".

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2068095/mattis-says-no-need-dramatic-us-military-moves-schinaOn the 4th of February, The South China Morning Post reported on the same comments made by Jim Mattis but wrote on it more extensively. They used the same quotes as the New York Times and used the same structure as the previously mentioned news organisation to report on his comments. However, SCMP also went back to Rex Tillerson's statement on the South China Sea which were made a couple weeks prior. They expressed harsh criticism over the incoherence between the message of the Secretary of State and the Defense Secretary's. The biggest portion of the article is centered around Tillerson's statements rather than Mattis'. They warned readers about possible military confrontations between China and the US. SCMP seem to be more wary of the US' intentions in the South China Sea and suggest military confrontation is still a possibility, disregarding completely the comments made by Mattis.